[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

The problem with Jocaxian nothingness is that the Jocaxian nothingness theory, the theory about the Jocaxian nothingness-object, uses logical rules to help us understand the Jocaxian nothingness-object. But the Jocaxian nothingness object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. A theory describing the Jocaxian nothingness should not use logic or rules since the Jocaxian nothingness object does not involve them.

Again, based on the atheist world view this nothingness can produce a logical universe with natural laws and that we actually live in it. The traces of its emergence are the things that the secularists examine and these traces can - according to methodological naturalism - be investigated with logical and rational tools. They do not rely on the most useful form of evidence, eyewitness testimony, unlike us (Genesis 1:1 is the most powerful one). As an asserted state that has no rules there would also be no place for a rule "thou shalt not use logic". Your post is a non sequitur.

Only Jesus is beyond logic!

Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Perhaps some or even all aspects of brane cosmology or supersymmetric string theory will be shown to be true and correct even though as of yet scientists have not found supersymmetric particles. I don't see how evolution or brane cosmology would have any bearing on the truth of Christianity.

I can see the problem now. You do not rely on Jesus and the Bible but you wish to augment it with data derived from methodological naturalism.

This is a problem as Jesus is 100% the Truth™!

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Quantum mechanics including its refinements either by the string theory (hypothetical) or by the standard model is all about probability functions. It is not about Truth™ or untruth but about stochastic fluctuations. Within this atheist universe is embedded the principle of uncertainty; it's very structure is such that the occurrences at the quantum level are by definition impossible to predict. In addition, a particle can be positioned in two places simultaneously and there is no way to predict future events reliably, only by probabilities.

If you accept that as a fact, you must dismiss a lot of God's omnipotence. Either He becomes a trickster who is happy to let things pass as they are OR you make us incapable of striving for the good. In this world of fuzzy logic we can at best have good intentions but with the potential of disastrous results.

I am afraid that you are on the verge of entering the naturalistic delusion.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

A stochastic God is, once again, at best a Deistic being and thus unnecessary. A God capable of predicting quantum events is so complex that the secularists will have good reasons to demand us for some definitions and justification, which leads to ignosticism (not a-, which is just intellectual laziness), when they will really have a good motivation to say that the discussion of a God becomes meaningless unless we give them testable material.

Is the Standard Model in opposition to the Bible? Yes, definitely, it is. We can say that the cosmology of the Bible is outdated but if we say so and it is, why would the Resurrection, the supernatural answers to prayers etc. not be explained by random firing of our neurons producing false emotions and images? It would then be a very good question, and it is our duty that it will not be asked!

It is time we (and you!) returned to the Bible and the Pure Word of God and defended it.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

I can see the problem now. You do not rely on Jesus and the Bible but you wish to augment it with data derived from methodological naturalism.

This is a problem as Jesus is 100% the Truth™!

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Quantum mechanics including its refinements either by the string theory (hypothetical) or by the standard model is all about probability functions. It is not about Truth™ or untruth but about stochastic fluctuations. Within this atheist universe is embedded the principle of uncertainty; it's very structure is such that the occurrences at the quantum level are by definition impossible to predict. In addition, a particle can be positioned in two places simultaneously and there is no way to predict future events reliably, only by probabilities.

If you accept that as a fact, you must dismiss a lot of God's omnipotence. Either He becomes a trickster who is happy to let things pass as they are OR you make us incapable of striving for the good. In this world of fuzzy logic we can at best have good intentions but with the potential of disastrous results.

I am afraid that you are on the verge of entering the naturalistic delusion.

Isaiah 66:4
I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.

A stochastic God is, once again, at best a Deistic being and thus unnecessary. A God capable of predicting quantum events is so complex that the secularists will have good reasons to demand us for some definitions and justification, which leads to ignosticism (not a-, which is just intellectual laziness), when they will really have a good motivation to say that the discussion of a God becomes meaningless unless we give them testable material.

Is the Standard Model in opposition to the Bible? Yes, definitely, it is. We can say that the cosmology of the Bible is outdated but if we say so and it is, why would the Resurrection, the supernatural answers to prayers etc. not be explained by random firing of our neurons producing false emotions and images? It would then be a very good question, and it is our duty that it will not be asked!

It is time we (and you!) returned to the Bible and the Pure Word of God and defended it.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

IMHO, you are incorrect in assuming that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. As prof. Einstein has stated, the correct interpretation of QM is the ensemble interpretation. It is true though that the ensemble interpretation of QM does involve probability theory, but it is probability theory applied to an ensemble of particles, not a single particle as prof. Einstein has pointed out. The ensemble interpretation does not rule out that quantum theory is an incomplete theory which involves there being a hidden layer of reality which blocks our knowledge of what will occur at the quantum level, but this hidden layer of reality will become known as the standard model is updated, revised and expanded to a supersymmetric grand unified membrane theory. The standard model is incomplete and in any case does not contradict any teaching of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Catholicism. I don't see how it would contradict Baptist Christianity or Protestantism either. At least if you interpret it correctly.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

If you accept that as a fact, you must dismiss a lot of God's omnipotence. Either He becomes a trickster who is happy to let things pass as they are OR you make us incapable of striving for the good. In this world of fuzzy logic we can at best have good intentions but with the potential of disastrous results.

No. I'll tell you why. The question of the omnipotence of God hinges on what you mean by omnipotence. IMHO, it really does not mean omnipotence in the usual sense. Omnipotence means you have the power to do anything. But clearly God does not have omnipotence in that sense. God cannot do certain things such as creating the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. This holds without any reference to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics which is itself subject to serious question and untenable for a variety of reasons.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Again, based on the atheist world view this nothingness can produce a logical universe with natural laws and that we actually live in it.

Without God, I don't see the mechanism for going from nothingness and a world without logic to the vast world of knowledge and technological advances that we have now?

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

IMHO, you are incorrect in assuming that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. As prof. Einstein has stated, the correct interpretation of QM is the ensemble interpretation. It is true though that the ensemble interpretation of QM does involve probability theory, but it is probability theory applied to an ensemble of particles, not a single particle as prof. Einstein has pointed out. The ensemble interpretation does not rule out that quantum theory is an incomplete theory which involves there being a hidden layer of reality which blocks our knowledge of what will occur at the quantum level, but this hidden layer of reality will become known as the standard model is updated, revised and expanded to a supersymmetric grand unified membrane theory. The standard model is incomplete and in any case does not contradict any teaching of Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, or Catholicism. I don't see how it would contradict Baptist Christianity or Protestantism either. At least if you interpret it correctly.

Dear Friend,

You are trying to eat the cake and preserve it, and the way to do that is not to use testimonials from a person whose ideas about quantum mechanics failed. Mr. Einstein never accepted quantum entanglement, which, however, the atheists have been able to observe. Why then, would his overall interpretation of QM be the correct one unless it is the only interpretation that supports your preconceptions.

In a nutshell, experimentalists John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat and colleagues have performed the Bell proposal for a test of Einstein's hidden variable theories. All results so far support quantum mechanics. It seems that when two particles undergo entanglement, whatever happens to one of the particles can instantly affect the other, even if the particles are separated!

Please note that although I mention names, it is to cite references, not to use them as testimonials.

Your idea of probability being applied to an ensemble of particles does not save your position, it makes it worse. Then we would have to apply stochastics and unpredictability to assemblies of particles.

I am one. So are you.

In the same manner as all modern cosmology contradicts True Christianity™, so does QM. If we start to doubt God's Word in the case of a solid Firmament (Genesis 1:6), why would Jesus be any more real. Obviously, that is what the secularists are trying to make us think, isn't it?

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Consciousness? In the naturalistic world it is a continuum. My dog (who'll never get into Heaven; Revelation 22:15) has a theory of mind as he knows very well when I am not watching and he can steal some treats. The chimp baby knows when her mother has died and grieves and can die of a broken heart. In the atheist world it is not a supernatural thing to be explained but just relatively advanced data processing.

It is true that manyanimals possess a simple consciousness, but there are higher levelsof consciousness possessed only by humans, such as cosmicconsciousness which includes an awareness of life and order of theuniverse and an ability to use this cosmic consciousness to grasp andarticulate in various languages knowledge and deeper truths about theuniverse. I doubt that a dog or an elephant would be able to develop or even to understand Minkowski geometry, de rham cohomology, the general theory of relativity or the mechanism behind superconductivity.

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Dear Friend,

You are trying to eat the cake and preserve it, and the way to do that is not to use testimonials from a person whose ideas about quantum mechanics failed. Mr. Einstein never accepted quantum entanglement, which, however, the atheists have been able to observe. Why then, would his overall interpretation of QM be the correct one unless it is the only interpretation that supports your preconceptions.
Please note that although I mention names, it is to cite references, not to use them as testimonials.

Your idea of probability being applied to an ensemble of particles does not save your position, it makes it worse. Then we would have to apply stochastics and unpredictability to assemblies of particles.

I am one. So are you.

In the same manner as all modern cosmology contradicts True Christianity™, so does QM. If we start to doubt God's Word in the case of a solid Firmament (Genesis 1:6), why would Jesus be any more real. Obviously, that is what the secularists are trying to make us think, isn't it?

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

IMHO, quantum entanglement has also been interpreted incorrectly. I'll need more time to show why. Regardless of whether or not some of Einstein's ideas about QM have been disputed, the fact remains that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has also been disputed and that many people today adhere to a version of the ensemble interpretation which is free of any contradictions.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

IMHO, quantum entanglement has also been interpreted incorrectly. I'll need more time to show why. Regardless of whether or not some of Einstein's ideas about QM have been disputed, the fact remains that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has also been disputed and that many people today adhere to a version of the ensemble interpretation which is free of any contradictions.

Please...
1. Be informed that "many people" is not an authority (as I state above) but a fallacy.
2. Asses the issue of Catholicism accepting atheist Salvation and evolutionary theory with its problems with theodicy and how the cosmological ideas of atheists are just a tiny bit away from those issues.
3. Do not hide behind the smoke screen of the philosophical dimensions of Q physics, when the actual issue is that following methodological naturalism leads, really, to the God of Gaps. The theory of QP is just an example. It is not the actual issue. If you are complacent with the idea that "we need something that originated the Jocaxian nothingness" then the path to the Living God that is Jesus and present and an active participant in Earth History is more or less lost and what would be the point of Christianity any more?
4, Please, inform us about your position regarding the Bible as a reliable source of historical events including Creation (Genesis 1:1) and the Fall (Genesis 3:6), etc. Do you accept these as historical facts? If not, how do you discern between facts and myth?

That is why the atheist science is dangerous. If we didn't have the Bible (fortunately, we do), we would have no choice but to accept the theories of evolution, abiogenesis and quantum cosmology as adequate explanations that will be eventually supplemented by more data. The observations would lead us to them. Only by accepting the Bible can we distinguish between data that are compatible with the existence of Jesus Christ and those that are here only to test and distract us.

Your heart is still in the right place but how long? When will the seduction of useless Deism become too strong and the road to atheism is then paved with good intentions.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Basilissa]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

IMHO, you are incorrect in assuming that the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one. As prof. Einstein has stated, the correct interpretation of QM is the ensemble interpretation. (pseudo-scientific drivel removed for brevity)

Honey, if you want to discuss science, then please at least attempt to do it right. Here (again) are some helpful instructions which you should have been following already:

Again, it is dangerous to play the game of the atheists on their own field. Your post above consists of testimonials, which is a valid way to prove the existence of Jesus (and all that we have in the form of the Gospels) but in the field of secular science it is pitifully inadequate. A quotation of a professor is simply an appeal to authority, again a valid argument when we refer to the Bible but an inappropriate fallacy as a naturalistic conclusion. It's the data that matter, not someone's opinion on it! Please, refrain from quoting Einstein with quantum mechanics, as he really did his work long before particle physics shed any light on it. Any secular physicist will tell you this, and I'm only trying to protect you! Whatever a person says about the incomprehensibility of quantum physics is just an assertion and the point is to discuss what the actual data say.

It is even more dangerous to use unknown authorities (again, within secular logic it is a fallacy) with the "many scientists". We of all people should know that the majority is not necessarily correct,

And yet you continue to commit the same logical fallacies again!

IMHO, quantum entanglement has also been interpreted incorrectly. I'll need more time to show why. Regardless of whether or not some of Einstein's ideas about QM have been disputed, the fact remains that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has also been disputed and that many people today adhere to a version of the ensemble interpretation which is free of any contradictions.

Thank you for making scientists look like erratic incoherent people who are driven by biased opinions rather than objective data. That's our opinion about them, too!

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Dear Friend,

You are trying to eat the cake and preserve it,

Dear Pastor Elmer G White. You have brought up a lot of interesting points and I am going to try to answer each one of them. I see that in addition to knowing the Bible very well, you have a good knowledge and understanding of the atheist positions on various issues. I believe that each one of the atheist points you have referred to can be countered with a more reasonable solution. For one thing, let me take the issue of deism and the contention that countering atheism can only lead to deism. I think that this is true, but not something to worry about because it is likely that an atheist will be converted in steps to theism, and not right away. As I see it, the path of conversion from atheism may involve the atheist first turning to agnosticism, then deism, and then theism.
Unfortunately, I have been receiving a lot of infractions and so I don't know how much longer it will be until I am banned from this forum. I will try to respond and answer as I can. For another example, that of Quantum entanglement, this is really a non-issue philosophically because since QM involves the statistical methodology, and quantum entanglement is nothing more or less than statistical correlation described in quantum language. At the present time QM is the right theoretical framework to describe our universe, but it is the interpretation of QM which is dubious. In QM, the probabilistic amplitudes are complex numbers and the probability of a state is given by the squared absolute values of these complex quantities. The novelty here is that the complex phase of the complex number will show up when you calculate the probabilities of different mixed measurements, even though they do not appear in the squared absolute values of these complex quantities. Almost all states in the Hilbert space description of QM are entangled because they are mixed states, i.e., they arenontrivial complex linear superpositions of different tensor productstates. If two subsystems have interacted sometime in the past, they will most likely emerge in an entangled state. So there is nothing mysterious about quantum entanglement once you realize how QM is formulated in the context of Hilbert spaces.

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

Dear Friend,

I am going to ask you one more time to look at the Big Picture. We started this conversation by you stating that you could easily crush atheism with some simplistic assertions, such as the one that "something cannot come out of nothing" and that "the evolution of consciousness requires supernatural intervention". These are just some examples, and the Big Issue is that you are cherry picking the results of methodological naturalism, which is an issue that no educated atheist is going to miss. Please remember that we're on your side and just trying to help you debate the well-informed atheist who can see through your argument within the secular context.

I am ready to admit that your posts were the first time I saw the Gish Gallop applied to a discussion on Quantum Mechanics. It was nice to see, and it used to be quite a good strategy but ultimately you're now just listing some obscure and complex names of equations and theories without actual substance but avoiding the questions how all this applies to our only source of knowledge on Jesus, i.e., the Bible. I am once more going to assess that. The first thing to remember is that you're disregarding data on QM that does not fit your preconceptions. It is close to the strategy of Creation Science (we'll get to that) but not adequate when you debate an atheist. You've chosen some interpretations of QM that fit your world view but the other possibilities have not gone away. None of these have been totally proven (nor will be by 100% as that is the Way of the Methodological Naturalism, so different from the Way of Jesus; John 14:6). Essentially, you're using the paradigm of testimonial-based True Religion™ in the field of natural sciences, where you should use the paradigm of also considering (and especially considering) the data that do not fit your theory. In addition, without this and proper references you're just presenting opinions, and the atheists will soon pick that up.

Let us look at my previous request:

Please...
1. Be informed that "many people" is not an authority (as I state above) but a fallacy.
2. Asses the issue of Catholicism accepting atheist Salvation and evolutionary theory with its problems with theodicy and how the cosmological ideas of atheists are just a tiny bit away from those issues.
3. Do not hide behind the smoke screen of the philosophical dimensions of Q physics, when the actual issue is that following methodological naturalism leads, really, to the God of Gaps. The theory of QP is just an example. It is not the actual issue...
4, Please, inform us about your position regarding the Bible as a reliable source of historical events including Creation (Genesis 1:1) and the Fall (Genesis 3:6), etc. Do you accept these as historical facts? If not, how do you discern between facts and myth?

Let us also take a look at your response:

For one thing, let me take the issue of deism and the contention that countering atheism can only lead to deism. I think that this is true, but not something to worry about because it is likely that an atheist will be converted in steps to theism, and not right away. As I see it, the path of conversion from atheism may involve the atheist first turning to agnosticism, then deism, and then theism.
Unfortunately, I have been receiving a lot of infractions and so I don't know how much longer it will be until I am banned from this forum. I will try to respond and answer as I can. For another example, that of Quantum entanglement, this is really a non-issue philosophically because since QM involves the statistical methodology, and quantum entanglement is nothing more or less than statistical correlation described in quantum language. At the present time QM is the right theoretical framework to describe our universe, but it is the interpretation of QM which is dubious. In QM, the probabilistic amplitudes are complex numbers and the probability of a state is given by the squared absolute values of these complex quantities. The novelty here is that the complex phase of the complex number will show up when you calculate the probabilities of different mixed measurements, even though they do not appear in the squared absolute values of these complex quantities. Almost all states in the Hilbert space description of QM are entangled because they are mixed states, i.e., they arenontrivial complex linear superpositions of different tensor productstates. If two subsystems have interacted sometime in the past, they will most likely emerge in an entangled state. So there is...

We're not worried about atheists but about you, as the process of assessing the Bible through methodological naturalism that is cherry-picked inevitably leads to insecurity about the reliability of the Bible and the characteristics of God. I'll look at this in more detail later.

The infractions comment is unnecessary and just an example of the ad misericordiam fallacy. I'm assessing the content of your posts and not the emotional ballast.

And... please, do not hide behind the fancy words. We'll soon be ready to assess the problem points of the naturalistic world view that you've partly endorsed. To do that, I'm also referring to your post in another thread. Please do not hesitate to correct me if I've mistaken, but it seems that you're endorsing something like ID/TE regarding the emergence of biodiversity and man and something like the standard cosmological model when it comes to the shape and fate of the universe, and giving God a role in some "crucial" points of this development, including initiation, major evolutionary turning points, etc.

But how would a materialist explain human consciousness and the ability to abstract knowledge from the real world and to use that knowledge to create new knowledge and new artifacts? It is difficult to see how consciousness and self reflection would arise from a purely materialistic theory [appeal to incredulity]involving a complex configuration of atomic particles [straw man].As far as Christianity is concerned, one of the most important teachings is the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The New Testament indicates that the apostles witnessed [appeal to authority] the resurrected Lord.

OK. Evolution. Do the atheists have explanations to all the problem points? Fortunately, they don't but, unfortunately, they have too many to refute within methodological naturalism. I've already covered the case of abiogenesis in my previous post but here are some highlights:

• A simple molecule, formamide of meteorite origin, can produce RNA without conscious intervention and, lo, you'd have genes.
• Metabolism can arise spontaneously and easily, including complex pathways needed for the synthesis of amino acids, nucleotides, etc.
• The early synthesis of RNA would have been feasible with a simple machinery preserved as a genetic relics and simple ribozymes.
• tRNA arose from anticodons with primal stereo-chemical affinity between amino acids and the (future) tRNA triplets.
• The origin of the ribosome and the genetic code can be explained with relative simple chemistry.
• A single mutation is adequate to produce multicellularity.
• Similar pathways are available for the development of flowering plants, the placenta, and even the quinine resistance of the malaria parasite, the outdated ID argument. Look them up. You need to learn data searches.

Language? The one thing that is partly different between us and other Created Kinds (Genesis 1:28) is according to the atheists the result of a single mutation of FOXP2. With language you can start off the technical innovations that ultimately lead to motorcycle maintenance and the names of the mathematical and physics equations that you revere so much that it seems to be more than how much you revere Jesus.

Probability? Well-meaning ID proponents and even some liberal YEC-colleagues calculate the probabilities of a hemoglobin molecule arising by chance, and you use the same rhetoric in your "complex configuration of atomic particles". What they should be trying to calculate is if it is feasible by simple, robust physicochemical reactions to produce a molecule that has more affinity to oxygen than simple fluids. They (and you) would have to take into account all possible molecules that can do that even by a tiny degree and the number of possible reactions taking place simultaneously in the primordial atheist Earth "billions of years" ago. Please, calculate that and present that result to the atheists. They will ask you that!

Now it's time to see how this affects faith®.

If you accept the billions of years (do you?) you...

• Make God a trial-and-error tinkerer who was unable to do it right the first time, unable to set the initial conditions well enough to proceed without His meddling.
• Have to find an explanation to the mindless suffering of organisms during all this trial and error.
• Pinpoint the actual points of progress where evolution stalled and God had to intervene.

I've only given you some examples of issues that were once thought to be impossible but are now quite easily explained within the atheist mindset. Other examples include the Ubx and Abd-A mutations that can produce a six-legged (insect) arthropod from centipedes, and the "fact" that the path from a "common ancestor" of chimpanzees and humans has only required 150-200 positively selected genes in humans and slightly more in the chimp "lineage", much less than needed to refute, e.g., Haldane's dilemma (Bakewell, Margaret A; and, Zhang, Jianzhi (July 2008) Positive Selection on Genes in Humans as Compared to Chimpanzees. In: Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester. DOI:10.1002/9780470015902.a0020856, probably open access but I have the full reference here in any case).

These are all things that do not require intervention if you accept the naturalistic methodology. Including consciousness. You're comparing the endpoint (modern culture) with modern animal behavior but you can only do that by disregarding a vast amount of atheist literature. They won't let you do that, and I'm here to help you, so I won't let you do that, either.

On to cosmology: if you accept only your own favorite parts of QM, how can you justify it? We have the uncertainty principle that again undermines God's Omnipotency (Revelation 19:6). You're subscribing to the (Tomist in your case?) notion of God not being able to do logically impossible things? Why not? What for? He's outside and within this Creation and where in the Bible is it stated that He should follow mundane logic (hint! It is not Exodus 3.14)? All miracles and interventions are illogical and violate natural laws. If He wishes, He could make 2+2=5 and it would be just the way things would be from then on. Do we have proof of Him meddling with "logical mathematics"? As a matter of fact, we do! Praise Jesus!

1 Kings 7:23
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

Thus, Pi was exactly 3 on that occasion. If you don't accept that, you will have to answer the following questions:

• Did the Bible lie in this case? Where else does it lie?
• Were the scribes wrong in this case? Where else did they err?
• If that cannot be trusted, is there any more reason to believe Resurrection.

Next: More cosmology. Not only the uncertainty but also the fate of the Universe. Do you accept the effects of QM here, such as the possible proton decay? Of course, you have alternatives: Heat death after proton decay and the matter condensed into black holes slowly evaporating due to Hawking radiation; the Big Rip with vacuum energy finally winning over strong nuclear force and the elementary particles (in the realm of QM) flying all apart; the Big Crunch and all was in vain unless you believe the Bible but why should you with all the mindless eons of suffering and uselessness after the proton decays, the last star is extinguished, the final black hole is evaporated due to quantum effects that cannot be predicted because of the nature of the Creation? Do you think that the Book of Revelations is accurate? Is its eschatology correct? If it is, we have to dismiss the standard model. If you think that it is wrong, then we have again the question of which other parts of the Bible are wrong and how can to tell them apart?

Next: Chaos theory, the butterfly effect! You cannot predict the outcome of your actions. Thus, out goes the free will defense and you no longer have the freedom to do good but only to do things that you think might lead to consequences that you feel are good. Only way out, not QM but the Bible (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Your stand on Christianity: Here you accept second-hand eyewitness testimonial. Now we're cherry picking Big Time. If you endorse QM and TE/ID you dismiss the eyewitness testimonials of Genesis 1-3, Genesis 6-9, Job 40, etc. Why would they be less reliable than the "many unknown authorities" of 1 Corinthians 15:6? I can see why you like the "many people" defense. I also like it because of this very verse. But the atheists don't buy it. If you accept the methodology of naturalism when it comes to fossils and cosmology, do you still accept it when it comes to the historicity of Jesus? There is much less secular evidence for a Jesus having been among us than there is for the evolution of man according to natural selection.

The atheists call this special pleading. You're using it all the time. It's a fallacy when it comes to methodological naturalism. Different criteria for assessment for the things you like and for the things you don't accept.

OK. There are some things you can do.

First option: Study! Do your homework. Look at the data that do not support your ideas and do not dismiss it. That is methodological naturalism without special pleading. If you take that path without taking into account the Bible, you will lose it all. Jesus will become improbable, Creation will be plausible without God and you will no longer add "extra" entities to these phenomena based on Occam's razor. Instead of an atheist slowly accepting Jesus through Deism, it is you who is going to go opposite way. This is hard work and requires lots of reading. The research on abiogenesis alone during the last decade means thousands of well-formulated papers. This is the way of looking at "objective evidence" first and then dismissing the parts of the Bible that do not fit it. The result will be that the Bible will not remain.

Second option: Choose Jesus without conditions or reservations. Take the path of Creation Science. We take the Bible first and accept it totally. We look at evidence thereafter and choose the correct observations based on our assessment if they fit God's Word. The rest is Delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11).

Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Didymus Much]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

So what remedy does True Christian(tm) Creation Science recommend for severe burns?

[Elmer G. White]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

So what remedy does True Christian™ Creation Science recommend for severe burns?

Mr. Much, the person who is always ready to seize the prey of doubting Christians in his atheist fangs! Please refrain from seducing this poor fellow. As for your question, I'll humor you. Prevention is always the best method to avoid any condition, including flogistonic accidents. The way to prevent burns is Prayer!

Psalms 39:13
O spare me, that I may recover strength, before I go hence, and be no more.

I've prayed. I've been spared. Every day it's a miracle that I've not had any severe burns. However, were it to happen, I'd use more Prayer!

Hosea 6:1
Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.

Matthew 10:8
Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.



Of course, many atheists and agnostics will try Praying in their despair but they will fail, which is another manifestation of the True Nature™ of the Bible!

John 9:31
Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

There we have it: A simple way to crush atheism! No need to recite pompous equations or refer to methylation of guanine causing epigenetic effects. We can just look at the atheist. Have they been able to pray away any sickness? Obviously not and the explanation for that is in plain sight in the Bible.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[tomdstone]

Re: Ten points that CRUSH Atheism

So what remedy does True Christian™ Creation Science recommend for severe burns?

I don't know what he would recommend, but I would recommend soaking in cool water for several minutes.